Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


I was asking on the speed of electrons in the conductor.

No you were babbling about electrons jumping off the end of the antenna
yet again.

You have also been told many times that the speed of the electrons in the
conductor is less than a slow crawl.

The average speed.
The circuit with an antenna was named "open circuit" before Maxwell.
Maxwell discovered that the current is "prolongated" in the insulator
(displacement current) so the all circuits are "closed".
So at the bonduary the electrons must jump off. And come back.
In each textbooks is wrote that electrons jump off from a conductor and come
back.
But sometimes this phenomena is not symmetric.

You still have not explained how it is possible that the behaviour
is not symmetric and still there is no nonlinearity in the antenna.

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa3 w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


I was asking on the speed of electrons in the conductor.

No you were babbling about electrons jumping off the end of the antenna
yet again.

You have also been told many times that the speed of the electrons in
the
conductor is less than a slow crawl.

The average speed.
The circuit with an antenna was named "open circuit" before Maxwell.
Maxwell discovered that the current is "prolongated" in the insulator
(displacement current) so the all circuits are "closed".
So at the bonduary the electrons must jump off. And come back.
In each textbooks is wrote that electrons jump off from a conductor and
come
back.
But sometimes this phenomena is not symmetric.

You still have not explained how it is possible that the behaviour
is not symmetric and still there is no nonlinearity in the antenna.

The oscillatory flow of electrons is inherently not symmetric.
Always some of them jump off from the antenna end. VSWR =1 means that all
jumps off.

It should be obvious for you if you see the electrons in the wire.
For Pointing there no electrons. There are only fields around the wire.
He wrote: " Formerly a current was regarded as something traveling along a
conductor, attention being chiefly directed to the conductor, and the energy
which appeared at any part of the circuit, if considered at all, was
supposed to be conveyed thither through the conductor by the current. "

And next: "The aim of this paper is to prove that there is a general law for
the transfer of energy, according to which it moves at any point
perpendicularly to the plane containing the lines of electric force and
magnetic force, and that the amount crossing unit of area per second of this
plane is equal to the product of the intensities of the two forces,
multiplied by the sine of the angle between them, divided by , while the
direction of flow of energy is that in which a right-handed screw would move
if turned round from the positive direction of the electromotive to the
positive direction of the magnetic intensity".

The teachers buy it.

Before Haeviside and Pointing was " something traveling along a conductor".
What do you prefer: electrons or fields?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa3 w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


I was asking on the speed of electrons in the conductor.

No you were babbling about electrons jumping off the end of the antenna
yet again.

You have also been told many times that the speed of the electrons in
the
conductor is less than a slow crawl.

The average speed.
The circuit with an antenna was named "open circuit" before Maxwell.
Maxwell discovered that the current is "prolongated" in the insulator
(displacement current) so the all circuits are "closed".
So at the bonduary the electrons must jump off. And come back.
In each textbooks is wrote that electrons jump off from a conductor and
come
back.
But sometimes this phenomena is not symmetric.

You still have not explained how it is possible that the behaviour
is not symmetric and still there is no nonlinearity in the antenna.

The oscillatory flow of electrons is inherently not symmetric.

You keep claiming that. But you don't explain why there is no
nonlinearity in the antenna. When the antenna is nonlinear, as you
claim, there must be intermodulation in the antenna. But in a well
constructed antenna, there is no intermodulation. So there is
no unsymmetric flow of electrons.

I don't care what people have written in the 19th century. Please
stop bringing that up. I am only interested in how things are
explained today.

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The oscillatory flow of electrons is inherently not symmetric.

You keep claiming that. But you don't explain why there is no
nonlinearity in the antenna. When the antenna is nonlinear, as you
claim, there must be intermodulation in the antenna. But in a well
constructed antenna, there is no intermodulation. So there is
no unsymmetric flow of electrons.

I don't care what people have written in the 19th century. Please
stop bringing that up. I am only interested in how things are
explained today.

Everything was discovered in XIX (for the radio):
"The electrical waves produced by the oscillations at A traveled along the
wires and were reflected at the far ends. Lodge knew that the longer spark
at B3 was due to what he called the "recoil impulse" or "recoil kick" at the
end of the wires where the waves were reflected.[4] At spark gap B3 both the
incident wave and the reflected wave had their maximum values and were in
phase. This produced a voltage twice as large as the voltage at spark gap A.
From: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm

Is it still true?

If yes, than you must admit that the leakage must be stronger at "recoil
kick" when the voltage is doubled.
"So there is the unsymmetrical flow of electrons." Do you agree?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I don't care what people have written in the 19th century. Please
stop bringing that up. I am only interested in how things are
explained today.

Everything was discovered in XIX (for the radio):

But then later it was found that the first discoveries were not
entirely correctly described.

"The electrical waves produced by the oscillations at A traveled along the
wires and were reflected at the far ends. Lodge knew that the longer spark
at B3 was due to what he called the "recoil impulse" or "recoil kick" at the
end of the wires where the waves were reflected.[4] At spark gap B3 both the
incident wave and the reflected wave had their maximum values and were in
phase. This produced a voltage twice as large as the voltage at spark gap A.
From: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm

Is it still true?

A reflected wave along a nonterminated transmission line will result in
doubled voltage at the open end.

If yes, than you must admit that the leakage must be stronger at "recoil
kick" when the voltage is doubled.
"So there is the unsymmetrical flow of electrons." Do you agree?

But here you are talking complete hogwash again. The effect you describe
above has nothing to do with leakage or unsymmetrical flow of electrons.

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I don't care what people have written in the 19th century. Please
stop bringing that up. I am only interested in how things are
explained today.

Everything was discovered in XIX (for the radio):

But then later it was found that the first discoveries were not
entirely correctly described.

EM was "correctly" described by Heaviside and Pointing in XIX century before
the Hertz experiment.

"The electrical waves produced by the oscillations at A traveled along
the
wires and were reflected at the far ends. Lodge knew that the longer
spark
at B3 was due to what he called the "recoil impulse" or "recoil kick" at
the
end of the wires where the waves were reflected.[4] At spark gap B3 both
the
incident wave and the reflected wave had their maximum values and were in
phase. This produced a voltage twice as large as the voltage at spark gap
A.
From: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm

Is it still true?

A reflected wave along a nonterminated transmission line will result in
doubled voltage at the open end.

Not always. The "nonterminated transmission line" may be the Lodge's wire or
Your antenna (short dipole).
In your antenna the electrons are not reflected and do not destroy your
transmitter. They JUMP OFF Periodically = pressure waves.
Do not write that I claim it. It is the explanation by Faraday, Lorenz,
Tesla and Dirac. The all is in the each textbooks. But in different chapters
(lessons).

If yes, than you must admit that the leakage must be stronger at "recoil
kick" when the voltage is doubled.
"So there is the unsymmetrical flow of electrons." Do you agree?

But here you are talking complete hogwash again. The effect you describe
above has nothing to do with leakage or unsymmetrical flow of electrons.

In each textbooks is the Richardson equation. The electron field emission is
voltage and temperature dependent.

Do you understand the Pointing explanation that nothing if flowing in the
conductor?

For me: " But then later it was found that the first (Pointing) discoveries
were not
entirely correctly described."
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In your antenna the electrons are not reflected and do not destroy your
transmitter. They JUMP OFF Periodically = pressure waves.

Not in my antenna.
Not in your antenna either, because you have no antenna.

Do not write that I claim it. It is the explanation by Faraday, Lorenz,
Tesla and Dirac. The all is in the each textbooks. But in different chapters
(lessons).

But not in textbooks written today. Because today we know that no electrons
are jumping off antennas.

(maybe this evening they will, thunderstorms announced. but not because
of transmissions)